Astronomers probe origin of Planet 9

September 14, 2017

Artist’s impression of Planet Nine, blocking out the Milky Way. The Sun is in the distance, with the orbit of Neptune shown as a ring. Credit: ESO/Tomruen/nagualdesign

Astronomers at the University of Sheffield have shown that 'Planet 9' – an unseen planet on the edge of our solar system – probably formed closer to home than previously thought.

A team led by Dr Richard Parker from the University of Sheffield's Department of Physics and Astronomy has found that Planet 9 is 'unlikely' to have been captured from another planetary system, as has previously been suggested, and must have formed around the sun.

The outskirts of the solar system have always been something of an enigma, with astronomers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries searching for a giant planet that wasn't there, and the subsequent discovery of Pluto in 1930.

Pluto was downgraded in status to a 'dwarf planet' because astronomers discovered many other small objects – so-called Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt objects – at similar distances from the sun.

In 2016 astronomers working in the USA postulated the presence of 'Planet 9' to explain the strange orbital properties of some Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt objects.

But while it isn't possible to directly observe Planet 9, it hasn't stopped theorists from trying to work out how it got there.

Planet 9 is at least 10 times bigger than Earth, making it unlikely that it formed at such a large distance from the sun. Instead, it has been suggested it either moved there from the inner regions of the solar system, or it could have been captured when the sun was still in its birth star cluster.

But a team, led by Dr Parker with colleagues from ETH Zurich, has shown that the capture scenario is extremely unlikely.

Researchers simulated the sun's stellar nursery where interactions are common and found that even in conditions optimised to capture free-floating planets, only five-to-10 out of 10,000 planets are captured onto an orbit like Planet 9's.

Dr Parker said: "We know that planetary systems form at the same time as stars, and when stars are very young they are usually found in groups where interactions between stellar siblings are common. Therefore, the environment where stars form directly affects planetary systems like our own, and is usually so densely populated that stars can capture other stars or planets.

"In this work, we have shown that - although capture is common - ensnaring planets onto the postulated orbit of Planet 9 is very improbable. We're not ruling out the idea of Planet 9, but instead we're saying that it must have formed around the sun, rather than captured from another planetary system."

The study was published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Related Stories

Through a computer-simulated study, astronomers at Lund University in Sweden show that it is highly likely that the so-called Planet 9 is an exoplanet. This would make it the first exoplanet to be discovered inside our own ...

(Phys.org) -- New research suggests that billions of stars in our galaxy have captured rogue planets that once roamed interstellar space. The nomad worlds, which were kicked out of the star systems in which they formed, occasionally ...

When planets first begin to form, the aftermath of the process leaves a ring of rocky and icy material that's rotating and colliding around the young central star like a celestial roller derby. Analogs to our own Solar System's ...

(Phys.org) -- The discovery of planets around other stars has led to the realization that alien solar systems often have bizarre features - at least they seem bizarre to us because they were so unexpected. For example, many ...

Recommended for you

Immense northern storms on Saturn can disturb atmospheric patterns at the planet's equator, finds the international Cassini mission in a study led by Dr Leigh Fletcher from the University of Leicester.

If you could fly aboard NASA's Dawn spacecraft, the surface of dwarf planet Ceres would generally look quite dark, but with notable exceptions. These exceptions are the hundreds of bright areas that stand out in images Dawn ...

A 60-year-old mystery regarding the source of some energetic and potentially damaging particles in Earth's radiation belts is now solved using data from a shoebox-sized satellite built and operated by University of Colorado ...

The search for life beyond Earth is riding a surge of creativity and innovation. Following a gold rush of exoplanet discovery over the past two decades, it is time to tackle the next step: determining which of the known exoplanets ...

61 comments

As far as I know, this "planet" is still hypothetical. It hasn't been observed. And it should be called Planet X, not Planet 9. There's already a Planet 9. Depending on whether you adhere to a simple geophysical definition of planet or add a 2000-kilometer minimum diameter to it, Planet 9 is either Neptune or Pluto.

Also, no other object as big as Pluto (1471 miles in diameter) or the very slightly smaller Eris (1445 miles in diameter) has yet been discovered in the Kuiper Belt. They're both bigger than the next largest object that is geophysically a planet, Makemake (approximately 890 miles in diameter), by far.

Please refer to this hypothetical world with the traditional term used for suspected but undiscovered planets, which is Planet X (with X referring to the unknown, not to the number 10). If this object exists, it is NOT the solar system's ninth planet. Pluto's downgrade remains a matter of controversy and debate and should be not be depicted as fact, as many scientists prefer a geophysical planet definition that includes all worlds large enough to be rounded by their own gravity. With this definition, the solar system already has more than nine planets, as dwarf planets are planets too. They are a subclass of planets. That means we have a minimum of 13 planets already, so this one would at minimum be Planet 14.

Please refer to this hypothetical world with the traditional term used for suspected but undiscovered planets, which is Planet X (with X referring to the unknown, not to the number 10). If this object exists, it is NOT the solar system's ninth planet. Pluto's downgrade remains a matter of controversy and debate and should be not be depicted as fact, as many scientists prefer a geophysical planet definition that includes all worlds large enough to be rounded by their own gravity. With this definition, the solar system already has more than nine planets, as dwarf planets are planets too. They are a subclass of planets. That means we have a minimum of 13 planets already, so this one would at minimum be Planet 14.

Nope, The IAU has made their decision and they have indicated it will not be revisited. AS it stands, there are 8 planets with a possible 9th. Your agreement is not necessary.

Please refer to this hypothetical world with the traditional term used for suspected but undiscovered planets, which is Planet X (with X referring to the unknown, not to the number 10). If this object exists, it is NOT the solar system's ninth planet. Pluto's downgrade remains a matter of controversy and debate and should be not be depicted as fact, as many scientists prefer a geophysical planet definition that includes all worlds large enough to be rounded by their own gravity. With this definition, the solar system already has more than nine planets, as dwarf planets are planets too. They are a subclass of planets. That means we have a minimum of 13 planets already, so this one would at minimum be Planet 14.

Nope, The IAU has made their decision and they have indicated it will not be revisited. AS it stands, there are 8 planets with a possible 9th. Your agreement is not necessary.

Sure but what's going on opposite from us on the other side of the sun while we are orbiting around the sun. don't answer as i know you knew this is what i meant.

1) Planets at different distances have different orbital periods. It is not possible for a plent to always be exactly opposite Earth (especially not Planet 9 which, by all calculations, is pretty far away from the sun - so would have an orbital period, far, far longer than that of Earth)2) Even if a planet were to share an orbit exactly with Earth it would not stay directly 'opposite' the sun at all times, because orbital speed varies with distance (Earth is not in a circular orbit but an elliptical one - just like every other planet). Google for Kepler's laws of orbital motion.3) Yes, we've had satellites that went far out into the solar system look back (Voyager et. al). And no, they didn't see any mirror-Earths (they were able to see Earth just fine).

@Maggnus Science is not decided by decree of "authority." That is dogma. Planetary scientists do not need the permission of the IAU to define the term planet, and the IAU does not get to dictate one definition in complete disregard of the views of the world's leading planetary scientists. Deciding not to ever revisit the issue itself reflects that the IAU is practicing dogma rather than science. The 424 IAU members who created the flawed 2006 definition were mostly not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers, and their decision was and remains opposed by an equal number of professional planetary scientists. Our solar system does not have only 8 planets; it has 13 and counting. Your agreement and that of the IAU are not necessary.

No, it is not dogma, it is the standard of the scientific community, You don't have to like it, nor does it matter what you think about it, The IAU has been charged with the task of determining the scientific basis by which the term "planet" is considered. If you were a member, you could present your case for a different definition.

The current definition of "planet" does not include the dwarf planets, including Pluto. Your agreement or lack thereof is irrelevant.

Until you graduate and obtain a degree and become a member of the IAU, you will have to accept the decision and call it what they have decided. If you're not in class or a member of the scientific community, then you're a layman, and you can call it whatever the hell you want. Scientists will call it what the IAU has decided it is - a dwarf planet.

And yes, the agreement of the IAU IS necessary. They are the governing body until they are replaced. End of story.

No, the IAU definition is NOT the standard of the scientific community. It is one standard among several currently in use. The IAU is charged with naming objects, NOT determining a definition of them. Owen Gingerich, chair of the 2006 IAU committee on planet definition, has admitted as much.

You seem to view science as some sort of dictatorship, with the IAU playing a view much like that of the church in Galileo's time. Even Neil de Grasse Tyson, who does not view Pluto as a planet, acknowledges that nothing in science should ever be accepted blindly because someone or a group of someones say it is true. Today, many planetary scientists are choosing not to join the IAU and/or to ignore the IAU planet definition. Yet you would privilege a definition created by non-planetary scientists over one used by those whose field is the study of planets.

No, I do not have to accept the decision of the IAU, especially when leading planetary scientists such as Alan Stern continue to reject that decision.

"So start calling Pluto a planet right now. Add to the consensus, because that's how science makes progress, by one person at a time being convinced of the truth and adopting it. Science is not decided by votes and you are not required to submit to nonsense." ~Dr. Philip Metzger, planetary scientist

Science is not decided by decree of "authority." That is dogma. Planetary scientists do not need the permission of the IAU to define the term planet,

Erm...I'm not aware if you know this, but setting a definition is not 'science'. That's just setting a label.

What you're railing against isn't science but the setting of a name by a consensus body for convenience' sake, so that when people write papers they talk about the same thing. You're basically getting your panties in a bunch over something on the level of: "They shouldn't have renamed Coke to Coke Classic!"

Pluto is still there. It's still doing the same thing it was doing before. Science is still *exactly* the same as it was before. Get over it.

"Planet 9" IS in fact, Pluto. It really comes down to common usage and many of us, regular folks, Planetary scientists and Amateur Astronomers will NOT relent! Sick and tired of those who have declared themselves "Masters of The Universe" giving them the "Right" to redefine everything!

Maggnus, Astronomy is the oldest of the Sciences. Of course it was started by those who "Looked up" . One does not need a degree to be an Astronomer and in fact many, like myself, have actually made discoveries by "looking up" and in fact that is how the science began. Astronomy today, is taught by amateurs mostly not professionals. Go discover something then get back to me:)

Science is not decided by decree of "authority." That is dogma. Planetary scientists do not need the permission of the IAU to define the term planet,

Erm...I'm not aware if you know this, but setting a definition is not 'science'. That's just setting a label.

What you're railing against isn't science but the setting of a name by a consensus body for convenience' sake, so that when people write papers they talk about the same thing. You're basically getting your panties in a bunch over something on the level of: "They shouldn't have renamed Coke to Coke Classic!"

Pluto is still there. It's still doing the same thing it was doing before. Science is still *exactly* the same as it was before. Get over it.

@antialias_physorg There is no consensus among planetary scientists that the IAU has the right to set such definitions, just as there is no consensus among planetary scientists in favor of their definition. Plenty of planetary scientists refer to Pluto and other dwarf planets as planets in their scientific papers. The question is not whether Pluto is still out there but the need to recognize that more than one definition is currently in use and that the IAU definition, which has caused much public confusion, does not have to be accepted as anything more than one view in an ongoing debate. And sorry, but "getting over it" is not an option, and I refuse to do that.

Where the IAU messed up was when they voted that a dwarf planet is not a planet but is a distinct category. That is classification, not defining terms. In zoology, for comparison, scientists define terms by naming types, but it is forbidden for the naming committee to declare which species belong to which types and whether one type is a subcategory of another type. They defiantly state that each and every working scientist has the right to argue for any classification they think is right based on the ever-evolving science. To have a body VOTE for a classification scheme would be to shut down the very heart and soul of science. The IAU did a very serious no-no when they dipped into classification by authoritarian, majority decree. That is not how science works. It is anti-science. As for me (a professional planetary scientist), dwarf planets are a subcategory of planets, just like gas giant planets are a subcategory of planet.

Quoting from the code of the International Committee for Zoological Naming (zoology's equivalent of the IAU): "(1) The Code refrains from infringing upon taxonomic judgment, which must not be made subject to regulation or restraint. (2) Nomenclature does not determine the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of any taxon, nor the rank to be accorded to any assemblage...(3) The device of name-bearing types allows names to be applied to taxa without infringing upon taxonomic judgment....(4) Nomenclatural rules are tools that are designed to provide the maximum stability compatible with taxonomic freedom."

Taxonomic freedom. Something the IAU tried to abolish from astronomy. It is the DUTY of scientists to reject their misguided attempt to regulate and restrain our taxonomic freedom. Period.

To take this one step further, I agree with Galileo, Huygens, and astronomers throughout history who have considered large, round moons to be a subcategory of planet. Not all moons are planets and not all planets are moons, because dynamical classification and geophysical classification are two parallel schema of taxonomy. Similarly, not all mammals are carnivores and not all carnivores are mammals, because these terms belong to two different schema for classifying animals. In my taxonomic freedom, I argue that dynamical classification should be kept distinct from geophysical classification, because the processes that change the dynamical states of a body (like being captured into or ejected from an orbit) are largely distinct from the processes that change their geophysical state (I.e., planet formation processes). Therefore, when dwarf planet Triton was captured by Neptune it changed dynamical classification and became a moon, but geophysically it remained a small planet.

The IAU's ill-considered, off the cuff, and anti-scientific attempt at regulating taxonomy had the goal of limiting the number of planets to a very small number (hardly a scientific goal), so to accomplish that they mixed together dynamical and geophysical classification schemes. In my taxonomic freedom I consider this to be a grotesque monstrosity of no scientific value, which will soon be discarded. Indeed it is already being ignored in science publications since it provides no practical value to working scientists. On the other hand, there are scores of recent papers calling Titan, Pluto, Ceres,and Earth's Moon "planet" because that IS a useful classification. So the IAU is being ignored and taxonomic freedom will prevail.

@antialias_physorg There is no consensus among planetary scientists that the IAU has the right to set such definitions, just as there is no consensus among planetary scientists in favor of their definition. Plenty of planetary scientists refer to Pluto and other dwarf planets as planets in their scientific papers. The question is not whether Pluto is still out there but the need to recognize that more than one definition is currently in use and that the IAU definition, which has caused much public confusion, does not have to be accepted as anything more than one view in an ongoing debate. And sorry, but "getting over it" is not an option, and I refuse to do that.

Ok, now you are just being obtuse, Of course the IAU has the authority, and your diatribe and confirmation you can't "get over it" is proof of your obstinance.

Where the IAU messed up was when they voted that a dwarf planet is not a planet but is a distinct category. That is classification, not defining terms. In zoology, for comparison, scientists define terms by naming types, but it is forbidden for the naming committee to declare which species belong to which types and whether one type is a subcategory of another type. They defiantly state that each and every working scientist has the right to argue for any classification they think is right based on the ever-evolving science. To have a body VOTE for a classification scheme would be to shut down the very heart and soul of science. The IAU did a very serious no-no when they dipped into classification by authoritarian, majority decree. That is not how science works. It is anti-science. As for me (a professional planetary scientist), dwarf planets are a subcategory of planets, just like gas giant planets are a subcategory of planet.

So if I were to say that the earth is a flat object around which the sun,moon and the other planets revolve, it would be okay with you as long as it were consistent?

If you could show that it's consistent with observation, sure. But you can't since such a definition would predict different behavior (ships not appearing over the horizon the way they do and whatnot). It's not consistent.

So you're totally missing the point here. They did not redefine any sort of behavior. They just changed a label. It's more like if someone decided that we should all call Earth now 'Glub'. Would it change anything in science? No.

So if I were to say that the earth is a flat object around which the sun,moon and the other planets revolve, it would be okay with you as long as it were consistent?

What does that have to do with changing definitions?

If we redefine "flat" as "spherical" and "sun" as "earth" and "earth" as "sun" your statement would be true.No science would change, as long as we are consistent and everyone uses the new terms everything stays the same.

novaman

Sure but what's going on opposite from us on the other side of the sun while we are orbiting around the sun. don't answer as i know you knew this is what i meant.

1) Planets at different distances have different orbital periods. It is not possible for a plent to always be exactly opposite Earth (especially not Planet 9 which, by all calculations, is pretty far away from the sun - so would have an orbital period, far, far longer than that of Earth)2) Even if a planet were to share an orbit exactly with Earth it would not stay directly 'opposite' the sun at all times, because orbital speed varies with distance (Earth is not in a circular orbit but an elliptical one - **

somehow the different orbit speeds slipped my mind, off course no 2 planets orbit alike, thanks for refreshing this basic fact to me.

If we redefine "flat" as "spherical" and "sun" as "earth"and "earth" as "sun" your statement would be true.

I think Richard Reynman really nailed the difference between science and label when he said:"If you memorize all the names of all the birds in the world - you still don't know anything about birds"

And you don't need to know all the names of every planet orbiting the Sun and every known planet orbiting other stars. You just need to know what a planet is. The planetary scientists have that covered.

Where the IAU messed up was when they voted that a dwarf planet is not a planet but is a distinct category. That is classification, not defining terms.

Your opinion is not relevant.

That's not going to make the boogeyman under your bed go away. Pluto is still a planet to a lot of astronomers and this opinion is still quite relevant.

No, actually it is not. The IAU is the body charged with officially assigning designations. I don't see why some find this so hard to understand. Any person can call any object anything they want. If you are writing a scientific paper, and want to be understood, you have to use the nomenclature assigned by the IAU.

If we redefine "flat" as "spherical" and "sun" as "earth"and "earth" as "sun" your statement would be true.

I think Richard Reynman really nailed the difference between science and label when he said:"If you memorize all the names of all the birds in the world - you still don't know anything about birds"

And you don't need to know all the names of every planet orbiting the Sun and every known planet orbiting other stars. You just need to know what a planet is. The planetary scientists have that covered.

Exactly. And exactly why the IAU decided to better define the term "planet" and added the term "dwarf-planet".

The IAU is the body charged with officially assigning designations. I don't see why some find this so hard to understand. Any person can call any object anything they want. If you are writing a scientific paper, and want to be understood, you have to use the nomenclature assigned by the IAU.

Nonsense.I just got done reviewing the use of "planet" in scientific publications since the IAU's 2006 vote. Planetary scientists have largely ignored the IAU definition and continue calling bodies like Europa, Titan, Ceres and Pluto "planets". This is widespread. I can show you hundreds of examples published in top scientific journals.

Also, the IAU failed to follow its own rules when it adopted the definition of a planet. The working rules state that the text of resolutions should be made available before the meeting for adequate review by the relevant community. This text was created "on the fly" and was approved without consensus of the planetary scientists. Further, no prior IAU definition was ever adopted as "resolved". All prior definitions were "recommended". The 2006 GA went on a wild, unprecedented tangent when it broke the IAU processes and then "resolved" a definition. It's no wonder so many planetary scientists are angry and reject it.

Also, the IAU failed to follow its own rules when it adopted the definition of a planet. The working rules state that the text of resolutions should be made available before the meeting for adequate review by the relevant community. This text was created "on the fly" and was approved without consensus of the planetary scientists. Further, no prior IAU definition was ever adopted as "resolved". All prior definitions were "recommended". The 2006 GA went on a wild, unprecedented tangent when it broke the IAU processes and then "resolved" a definition. It's no wonder so many planetary scientists are angry and reject it.

The tricksy astronomerses! They stole our Precious they did! But we won't let the thieveses get away with it!

Where the IAU messed up was when they voted that a dwarf planet is not a planet but is a distinct category. That is classification, not defining terms.

Your opinion is not relevant.

That's not going to make the boogeyman under your bed go away. Pluto is still a planet to a lot of astronomers and this opinion is still quite relevant.

No, actually it is not. The IAU is the body charged with officially assigning designations. I don't see why some find this so hard to understand. Any person can call any object anything they want. If you are writing a scientific paper, and want to be understood, you have to use the nomenclature assigned by the IAU.

Maybe you should re-read aa's comments about labels.

Maybe you should read DrPhiltill's comments and some other people's comments about definitions. We know what the IAU said. We're just ignoring it.

Ifplanet Nine formed about the same time as the rest of the solar planets, Dr. Brown's 700 AU semi-major axis is doomed. It would be cast out by a passing star over the lifetime of the solar system. VanFlandern calculated the maximum safe semi-major to be 490 AU. Vulcan. S semi-major of 291.2 AU and aphelion of 447.6 AU is safe. Bing or Google: "VULCAN REVEALEDA Dangerous New Jovian Sized Body In Our Solar System

However, the smaller semi-major axis would permit this body to influence Kuiper Belt Objects, sometimes casting them into 3: 2 Resonate sun grazing orbits. Then they would break up forming comet swarms. Some fragments from these swarms could hit Earth causing Ice Ages. Thus climate data from ice cores and tree rings would offer a way to compute this body's orbital period. Using this and other data, the orbital period was found to be 4969.3 years vs. the therotical 4969.0 year value.

However, the smaller semi-major axis would permit this body to influence Kuiper Belt Objects, sometimes casting them into 3: 2 Resonate sun grazing orbits. Then they would break up forming comet swarms. Some fragments from these swarms could hit Earth causing Ice Ages. Thus climate data from ice cores and tree rings would offer a way to compute this body's orbital period. Using this and other data, the orbital period was found to be 4969.3 years vs. the therotical 4969.0 year value.

Also, the IAU failed to follow its own rules when it adopted the definition of a planet. The working rules state that the text of resolutions should be made available before the meeting for adequate review by the relevant community. This text was created "on the fly" and was approved without consensus of the planetary scientists. Further, no prior IAU definition was ever adopted as "resolved". All prior definitions were "recommended". The 2006 GA went on a wild, unprecedented tangent when it broke the IAU processes and then "resolved" a definition. It's no wonder so many planetary scientists are angry and reject it.

The tricksy astronomerses! They stole our Precious they did! But we won't let the thieveses get away with it!

Notice that our Vulcan has one of the two possible orbital inclinations proposed for Planet Nine and its semi major axis is very close to the range proposed by the Marcos brothers:

VULCAN REVEALEDVULCAN'S ORBITAL PARAMETERS FROM BLAVATSKY'S THEOSOPHY

The U. Of AZ astronomers estimating that Planet Nine's orbital inclination could be near 18 deg. or 48 deg and Vulcan's 48.44 deg suggests that they are one and the same body.The Spanish astronomers suggesting that Planet Nine's semi major axis in the 300 to 400 AU range re-enforces the suspicion that both it and Vulcan (semi major axis 291.2 AU) both belong to one and the same body.

Notice also that astronomer Forbes in 1880 defined three orbital parameters for a planet in the outer solar system (period, orbital inclination and Longitude of the Ascending Node), and they are very close to the values found for our Vulcan. See: Table 2 - Vulcan's Orbital Parameters

Notice that our Vulcan has one of the two possible orbital inclinations proposed for Planet Nine and its semi major axis is very close to the range proposed by the Marcos brothers:

VULCAN REVEALEDVULCAN'S ORBITAL PARAMETERS FROM BLAVATSKY'S THEOSOPHY

The U. Of AZ astronomers estimating that Planet Nine's orbital inclination could be near 18 deg. or 48 deg and Vulcan's 48.44 deg suggests that they are one and the same body.The Spanish astronomers suggesting that Planet Nine's semi major axis in the 300 to 400 AU range re-enforces the suspicion that both it and Vulcan (semi major axis 291.2 AU) both belong to one and the same body.

"Madame Blavatsky?"Right. We have fused Madame Blavatsky's theosophy with IRAS data to get a complete set of orbital parameters. In essence, her theosophy gives us two vectors from the sun to this distant solar body. That defines the orbit plane. Of the first nine IRAS objects found, six were quickly identified. Of the three left, two were later resolved. The remaining one defined a vector from the Sun to that point. That vector falls in the orbit plane. The orbital inclination is 48.44 +/- 0.23 (2 sigma) degrees. Thus there is only one chance in 250 that this is a fortuitous result.No astronomer would have ever thought of this way to find this unknown solar body. One has to think outside the box. Forbes found three of the orbital parameters in 1880 and they closely agree with our result. Also, independent verification of the period can be found from weather changes induced by comet swarms and 2000 CR105 that operate in a 3:2 resonance with this solar body.

I'm going to wait until somebody has actually observed this Planet X (or Planet 14 and counting--*not* Planet 9, because that's either Neptune or Pluto). If Planet X actually exists, then this business goes beyond the realm of abstract discussion.

Please refer to this hypothetical world with the traditional term used for suspected but undiscovered planets, which is Planet X (with X referring to the unknown, not to the number 10). If this object exists, it is NOT the solar system's ninth planet. Pluto's downgrade remains a matter of controversy and debate and should be not be depicted as fact, as many scientists prefer a geophysical planet definition that includes all worlds large enough to be rounded by their own gravity. With this definition, the solar system already has more than nine planets, as dwarf planets are planets too. They are a subclass of planets. That means we have a minimum of 13 planets already, so this one would at minimum be Planet 14.

@ Pluto-Skippette. How you are Chere? I am good thanks for asking. How many years you have been taking a swipe at this windmill, eh" I wonder how many people are signing on to crusade (the ones signing on using beaucoup different names don't count.)

"Planet 9" IS in fact, Pluto. It really comes down to common usage and many of us, regular folks, Planetary scientists and Amateur Astronomers will NOT relent! Sick and tired of those who have declared themselves "Masters of The Universe" giving them the "Right" to redefine everything!

Tell me Cher, did you and the Pluto-Skippette go to the same Amateur Astronomers' Club? She sure does drag a lot of her acolytes in with her when ever she comes around here to whine about the Pluto.

Well what you know about that? Phil-Skippy and Patrick-Skippy come around just to whine about the IAU. Are you two couyons paying members of the "I Am Smitten By the Pluto-Skippette" club?

Have you ever heard her sing? Oh yeah, she has the youtubes of here singing. You can probably find them by asking Google-Skippy to show you the Pluto-Lady-Laurele-Singing videos. I would really recommend staying away from them though, she could not carry a one quart tune in a five gallon bucket.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.